I found this article to be incredibly confusing and misleading. First, how is the program going to be no cost to taxpayers and no liability to employers? If meant in a literal fashion then, yes, the program is not an accounting liability to employers because they are making what seems to be forced annual contributions, which in accounting treatment is an expense, not a liability. But employers still have to pay in to the system. It just forces them to leave aside money for a retirement program they otherwise wouldn't have. So how can this Treasurer imply that this program is not going to increase costs for companies?
And now everyone will be up in arms with me claiming that it should be a "right" to have an employer-based retirement plan. False. Very false. Compensation in the form of a defined benefit pension plan is simply foregone wages that the employee would have otherwise received. It's just a shifting of the buckets that make up the total compensation package. So if you force a company to make contributions to a retirement program that it otherwise wouldn't have made, the result will be either a decrease in wages or a decrease in employment. Money cant spawn from nowhere. It's the same concept as a minimum wage.
Instead, if people want to have a retirement account, no one is stopping them. There are numerous private options available for you to put your savings. Personal responsibility is the key.
And if the issue is that you don't have any disposable income to save, understand that this program doesn't solve that issue if (1) the savings contribution is effectively taken out of wages you otherwise would've received, or (2) you are laid off or (as an already unemployed individual) have difficulty finding a job because this program made hiring workers even more expensive.
When a politician implies that a mandate related to wages and income will be "free," it should always raise a red flag.